388 replies to this topic

[Teralitha]

Odanan, on 13 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

I've been playing Battletech (table-top) and all Mechwarrior computer series for the last 20 years, so I can say I'm a long time fan.

It's only me or more people think the Autocannons 2 and 5 are seriously underpowered? They weight too much, use ammo (which is always a risk) and deal a very small damage. OK, they are long range, but any mech can sustain single 2s and 5s of damage for a many turns.

The "Rapid-Fire" rule (two shots at the same time, with the risk of complications) improves the use of these weapons, but will it be implemented in the game? Please, devs, say yes!

I would suggest the developers to make it possible for the pilot to shoot again immediately after a shot with the autocannon: the second shot would be harder to hit and has a small chance to jam/destroy the gun.

They were fine before double armor, now it seems they dont do much but they are still doing what they did before. They now just need more ammo, and perhaps fire more quickly.

[Roguewolf]

Useless? No, not totally, but real the strength of this Mech are its variant possibilities. Primarily this was designed as an Anti-Air mech in its basic configuration. But like the Rifleman if you tweak it and change the mix, it become a very good heavy mech. Probably will not stand up to a Cataphract, but it will defiantly work well. As for AC5's/AC2's , it could work, but it would take an ace gunner.

Edited by Roguewolf, 05 July 2012 - 12:19 AM.

[Ettibber]

Mason Grimm, on 13 April 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

I gotta say I disagree...

AC2 and AC5, while not very high damage weapons, allow a player to sit at an extremely long range and plink away. You trade damage for increased range.

you put it on a fast enough mech it could be a serious problem.

[Dragoon Furey]

BulletChief, on 04 July 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

i guess that's a problem of the 'mech-only' approach.

embedded in a complete universe those weapons make sense. but if you only focus on mech battles, some weapons and/or mechs themselves might lose their justifications.

take for example the AC/2, AC/5, machine guns (!), small lasers etc. or even non-scout mechs in the 20-25 ton region like a flea.
those weapons and mechs make perfect sense in the universe as they still dominated infantry and light vehicles and are perfect for stuff like surveillance tasks, containment of protests etc.

in a straight up mech battle they are completely worthless (well, kinda). it's like sending a doorman into real combat. sure, he has some capabilities which fit his original task but he can't stand a big war scene.

therefore it's not a problem of the weapons itsself but of the circumstances they appear in - in this case a mech-only environment.

Spot on. which means either weapons need to be given a functunality against mechs, or we need light vehicles, air assets, and infantry to shoot at.

Enhancing the weapons functuinality against mechs is probably the easiest route, in the case of smaller ac's in MW3 and MW4 they seriously disrupted the aim of anyone trying to do percision sniping. so that is a viable option. The small laser already has its niche of using up that last half ton of space and excess energy slot. It does crap damage and has horrible range but it also makes virtualy no heat so why not? The usual alternative in that particular situation is reducing your armor for another medium laser, a trade off some might not want to make.

As for machine guns. im really not sure what they can do about them, they were such a liability in TT that you were much better off bringing flamers or srm's for anti-infantry. I guess at best you could load up a smaller mech thats all engine with them to hunt lightly armored scouts, but I don't think theres any IS chasis that will have the hardpoints for it untill much much later in the timeline.

[Skyefox]

Ettibber, on 05 July 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

you put it on a fast enough mech it could be a serious problem.

HAHA like nearly every other Mech between 40-65 tons. If it's got a base speed of 5 or higher, it usually has an AC.

EDIT:
I realize jumping to the end of a thread is good to express your views, but please read the other posts as many points have been made.

SUCH AS:

Vehicles/Aircraft will be included in a limited role.

"The battlefield commander will be able to call in air strikes, artillery strikes and other support unit requests."
http://mwomercs.com/game

Edited by Skyefox, 05 July 2012 - 12:42 AM.

[Buck Rogers]

I'd like to add another one of those annoying World Of Tanks player statements.

In World Of Tanks, just damaging enemies earns you credits. Because of the range rules, your medium lasers over the course of a match in MWO might yield you less targets than an AC-2, 5, or 10.

If MWO follows the WoT "damage = credits" rule, flinging AC-2 rounds at anything and everything, while you hunker down out of range and out of sight, will gain you more credits than a lot of other mechs with more fearsome but close range weapons.

Yeah, LRMs are long range also. They also need a lock. What if that enemy 'Mech pokes his head out of cover and you only have a shot for 2 seconds? Well, you can “dakkadakka” him. Won't kill him, but hey, damage is damage.

[Skyefox]

Buck Rogers, on 05 July 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

I'd like to add another one of those annoying World Of Tanks player statements.

In World Of Tanks, just damaging enemies earns you credits. Because of the range rules, your medium lasers over the course of a match in MWO might yield you less targets than an AC-2, 5, or 10.

If MWO follows the WoT "damage = credits" rule, flinging AC-2 rounds at anything and everything, while you hunker down out of range and out of sight, will gain you more credits than a lot of other mechs with more fearsome but close range weapons.

Yeah, LRMs are long range also. They also need a lock. What if that enemy 'Mech pokes his head out of cover and you only have a shot for 2 seconds? Well, you can “dakkadakka” him. Won't kill him, but hey, damage is damage.

Yes. As I recall, MechWarrior Living Legends also implemented a similar system, inviting a lot of people to pick light vehicles with long ranged weapons (LRM, AC/2-AC/5) to rack up points without risking their current ride.

[Theodor Kling]

Victor Morson, on 13 April 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

I think it's worth nothing that a "number of advantages/disadvantages" does not necessarily mean anything if those advantages are massive.

I could make a case for a sling shot having more advantages than an M16, it doesn't mean I'd want one.

Slingshot Advantages: Very light weight, cheap, ammunition is plentiful and can be improvised, easily built, easy to maintain, easy to learn, can be used by children, legal to purchase and own, can be loaded with multiple projectiles in a single shot.

M16 Advantages: Shoots fast, Kills things.

Winner: Slingshot, the superior weapon!

Well this an exelent example while the whole discussion is useless. It all depends on fighting style, battelfield, the enemy .... the whole situation.
An M16 is superiror to slingshot as long as you don´t run of ammo, and in the open. But the M16 is also known to break down often, especially when sand coems into play. And if you are a long way from support the ammo indipendene of the slignshot is a big plus. So there are situations where the slinghot would win despite beeing far inferiror when it comes to a dircet faceoff normally.
Same goes for Battletech weapons. Some mgiht seem useless.. but if used in their intended function they rule.

Snotling, on 13 April 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

i think a good way to balance weapons could be accuracy. Make the low caliber acs very accurate in comparison to the bigger ones would increase their usefullness

Not exactly relevant for the game mechanics, because calibre based disticntion between ACs has a long tradition in MW games. But originally the AC classification was not calibre based, but damage per round. So a AC10 and AC5 could fire the same rounds, but just at different rates. Or different rounds on the same rate, depnding on actualy odel and manufacturer.
I know this if far to complicated to implement it ingame. But I would love to see actually different variants of each AC class, with diferent pros and cons.
One fires faster, but less damage per round. One the other way round. Or one with slitgthly inferior stats but less prone to jamming... ah one can dream

[Boldar]

I personally like most ACs.
I like the AC5 and AC 10 very much, the have good range, generate little heat.
I rather like the AC2. It has got RANGE... nuff said
I dislike the AC20. No range and if I see a mech with AC20, he is my prime target (too much damage for my taste )

But the most important thing for me is: I like filling the air with lead. Missiles are fine but shooting guns is better.

I do NOT think that ACs are the best weapons in the game, but I think they are the ones with style.
So give them to me. You do not have to use them, I will.

Now, where can I get my Blackjack?

[MoxVoid]

Look up a Mech called the Talos. Those guns are far from under powered. Every weapon has its purpose. (However I still feel LRMS are UP but that is another story)

[Mentalcowman]

To be honest the different varied sizes of the weapons in my opinion are there so if you have a smaller mech or only a limited amount of spare room after fitting out your mech you have the option of a weapon instead of filling up on armor or leaving the space empty or for nostalgic value, Its cool that not everyone will be using the same weapon, the varied sizes of the same weapon appeal to many people and is a cool concept mechwarrior has always had, some weapon is better than no weapon right .

P.S Just my humble opinion from a casual mechwarrior player from back in the day .

[Thorgar Wulfson]

point of fact that 5 points of damage is the mainstay of the table top, you break missiles into 5 point clusters, your med laser is 5 points, your ac/5 is 5 points. LRM's averaged about 50% missile hits so the LRM 15 avergaed 7 points of damage, SRM-6's averaged 6 points of damage (3 missiles hit). So point of fact, a solid 5 points of damage from 18 hexes out with out fear of overheating was a good thing.

[UnexpectedDmg]

not all weapons need to have damage as a primary objective...
consider the AC2/5 as harassment weapons throwing off targetting or something. its an "interrupt source".
from that perspective have low damage with a higher ROF and more "minutes of weapon time" per ton of ammo makes sense.

would this let the opposing force mitigate LRM heavy assaults?

[shadowhawk102]

ac2 and ac5 have always been under valued, they may plink away but if you hit with a few of them at a time it adds up, and gives you more chances for a random crit on that target.

[The Master 1955]

WE are starting in the era of LB10, Streak 2, erlas & PPC, XXL engines and dbl heat sinks. Most of the weapons are 3025. The stuff we enjoy in the table top will not be available entill ??? 3060 I think. I wondr if the MWO will keep it close to the time line.

[csebal]

The Master 1955, on 05 July 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

I wondr if the MWO will keep it close to the time line.

I believe they plan on keeping in real time with the timeline (something was written about it, but I cant seem to find it right now), but I also suspect, that every now and then, they might make some leaps to introduce batches of new technology. After all, the clan invasion lasted a good few years, and while I hope the game will last as long, I'm also quite certain, that they might want to introduce new tech well ahead of when it would normally happen if we were to progress in real time.

Edited by csebal, 05 July 2012 - 06:22 AM.

[Damion Sparhawk]

Nevarie, on 05 July 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Spot on. which means either weapons need to be given a functunality against mechs, or we need light vehicles, air assets, and infantry to shoot at.

Enhancing the weapons functuinality against mechs is probably the easiest route, in the case of smaller ac's in MW3 and MW4 they seriously disrupted the aim of anyone trying to do percision sniping. so that is a viable option. The small laser already has its niche of using up that last half ton of space and excess energy slot. It does crap damage and has horrible range but it also makes virtualy no heat so why not? The usual alternative in that particular situation is reducing your armor for another medium laser, a trade off some might not want to make.

As for machine guns. im really not sure what they can do about them, they were such a liability in TT that you were much better off bringing flamers or srm's for anti-infantry. I guess at best you could load up a smaller mech thats all engine with them to hunt lightly armored scouts, but I don't think theres any IS chasis that will have the hardpoints for it untill much much later in the timeline.

it might be interesting if they added some kind of hired vehicles, like pay a few credits to hire a squadron of aerospace fighters or LRM crawlers, NPC driven of course, but could definitely make the battlefield a bit more interesting.

[Engineering]

If we look at AC 2/5 from a 3025 tech perspective they have a definate place. If you look at a fully upgraded tech point of view they are in fact worthless. But then again so is the AC/10. I mean seriously. Same damage for less weight space and longer range.

That said from the 3025 tech perspective the role of the AC 2/5 is not punch it's grind. It's a run and gun weapon. Your ammo will last longer and has a higher average damage/ton than an LRM rack.
The AC/2 does 90 damage/ton average if all shots hit, the LRM-20 rack does 76.17 damage/ton average if all volleys hit. So the damage potential of the AC/2 is *higher* than the LRM-20, but only in DoT, in DPS LRM-20 is much superior. Again stand and fight or run and gun?

PPC vs AC? Heat is a small issue if we only have 1 weapon on the mech since all mechs start with 10 HS base. However lets say that both mechs have 1 PPC. What is the choice for the second weapon? AC/5 weights 8 tons and takes 4 slots PPC weights 7 Tons and takes 3 slots.

However the heat sinks needed change the figures.

AC/5 1 heat = 1 ton 1 Slot
PPC 10 heat = 10 tons 10 slots

So AC/5 Is 9 Tons 5 Slots
PPC is 17 Tons 13 Slots

Is adding 1 PPCs to a mech that already 1 PPC better than Adding 2 AC/5s to a mech that already has 1 PPC? Yes definately.
However if you only have 10 tons or 6 slots left which is better?

Of course as I was saying earlier, DHS, ER PPC, RAC, UAC, Gauss all change the equation. However in 3025 tech AC definately has a place, it's just a place most players will choose not to be as they prefer to be the guy dishing huge hits rather than plinking away in a run and gun.

[Odweaver]

Future Perfect, on 05 July 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

I have suggested to remove the AC/2 from MechWarrior Online but it seems that everyone wants it left in and they are quite vocal about it.

If you start removing weapons then the devs need to start making their own custom variants to replace the primes and variants that use ac/2

[Kraven Kor]

EDMW CSN, on 13 April 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Same reason as why the Clint can mount an AC5 and then switch to a ERPPC.
And it is a official field refit kit by the Capcon themselves.

Maybe different variants will have different hardpoints, and thus be "separate mechs" so far as mechlab is concerned?

That being said, I'm sure there will be balance issues, and some weapons will work better or worse than they do in TT, etc. I will reserve any judgement until I've gotten my trigger finger on them

I don't think any weapons should be removed, but again, I'm sure some will have to be tweaked, and I'm sure some will function better in one situation than in another.